I would first like to state that I am atheist, but even I can find evidence that there is a God.

Arguments for God

1: Fine tuning of the universe

2: It would explain how we have morals

3: It is a logical assumption as to the start of the universe

4: Thousands of years of personal Experience

The universe is fine tuned for a creator. We circle the sun year by year, and fail to appreciate that if we were one mile off in either direction this planet would be uninhabitable. This has been the case for millions of years. We have the perfect conditions to sustain life which as far as we know, no other planet has. Science offers mere probability as an answer. Even if were by chance that were able to sustain these living conditions the odds are so improbable that it is hardly logical to assumethat.

It also would explain where morals are bred from. Without a way to judge morality we would have no reason to do good. We would only act in self interest. This is not the case however. All the time people are acting good and a majority of the people within the world assume the same things are bad. This is a moral compass that can not be explained.

With the evidence of the big bang it shows how life started, but again it is my probability. Due to sheer probability, the chances of evolution occurring in the way science describes are astronomical. It is a far more plausible theory to assume it was guided

Science is also quick to discard any example of personal experience. Any type of belief in divine healing or miracles, but throughout the ages we have heard countless stories of this. Enough to see it as a viable point. Sure it can be labeled, as a theory but with multitudes of people saying and believing that similar situations happened, it can be argued as a valid point and one that science can not combat. We also know the scientific community is relatively small, compared to other communities. So to automatically discard personal experience because they can no see it or experiment on it, is illogical

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. However, the "evidence" he presents for God, is not really evidence for a God at all. I will explain why all my opponent's arguments in favor of God's existence fail.

Fine-Tuning

My opponent makes the argument that it is too unlikely that the planet would have just the right conditions for life without a designer. This is false, as there are so many planets in the universe, that the odds are actually very high that at least a few of them would be able to support life. The fact that we find ourself on a planet that supports life should not be surprising, even assuming that God does not exist due to the abundance of dead planets that do not have life. In fact, this is a good argument against God's existence. If God existed, he would only need one planet. All the dead planets in the universe suggest that we actually are here by chance! Pro has not really shown any genuine improbability here. Thus, his first argument for God's existence fails. Also, this is not even the fine-tuning argument.

Morality

My opponent says that without God, we would only act in our self-interest. This is false. People who only act in their self-interest do not do well in society, and get shunned because they are a hindrance. If people work together, then it actually benefits everybody more in the long run. Evolution and the environment with regards to our society explains our sense of morality just fine without God. Something is only "wrong" collectively to human beings. However, without us, morality means nothing. There is no reason to think morality has any meaning outside of the collective human experience.

The Big Bang

My opponent mentions evolution, and just bare asserts that it would be implausible without God. However, he gives no argument for this. It is just a bare-assertion without reason or evidence to support it.

Personal Experience

People claim they experience X. That doesn't mean that X exists. This is a non-sequitur. It doesn't matter what people claim to experience when it comes to extraordinary claims. If there is no evidence, there is no evidence. They are just words without proof. Useless. This isn't even an argument.

Conclusion

All of Pro's arguments for God fail. The resolution has not been affirmed.

My opponent says that without God, we would only act in our self-interest. This is false. People who only act in their self-interest do not do well in society, and get shunned because they are a hindrance

Not necessarily.

If people work together, then it actually benefits everybody more in the long run.

Isn't that funny, Maybe it's a moral law perhaps.?

Evolution and the environment with regards to our society explains our sense of morality just fine without God.

Really... Evolution has an explain for morality, I'd like to hear it.....

Something is only "wrong" collectively to human beings.

No it's not...

However, without us, morality means nothing. There is no reason to think morality has any meaning outside of the collective human experience.

as there are so many planets in the universe, that the odds are actually very high that at least a few of them would be able to support life.

Really? I suppose their are I phones and X Boxes just floating around somewhere in this vast universe.....Just look at how big it is, surly the chances are that somewhere in space an I phone already exists. lol

I'm forced to wonder if Pro intended this to be a troll debate. He claims to be an atheist, yet he can "find evidence for God" and set up this resolution. Perhaps he was trying to play Devil's Advocate? But that idea rings hollow for a one-round debate that misrepresents at least one of the arguments and throws in trivially false claims, which is why I question the Relative Troll Index (RTI) value here.

Con didn't address this in the debate, and it doesn't factor into my vote since Con rebutted the broader point without doing so, but Pro claimed "if we were one mile off in either direction this planet would be uninhabitable." That's not even close to true. That's literally millions of miles away from true. It's even mentioned in his source that the "Goldilocks zone" is pretty darn wide.

(Since Pro didn't seem to note it in his own source, I'll drop this: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... , which indicates that on the LOW end the orbit could be 4.5 million miles different and still be habitable).

I have no idea why Pro posted the ironchariots wiki as his own source. It showed that he was misrepresenting the fine-tuning argument (which fails ANYWAY), which is why I give sources to Con. Just having a source is not sufficient for getting the source point, particularly when it goes against your own point.

As to arguments, in this one-round debate Pro made several bold claims, and Con demolished them quite easily without even having to point out the obviously wrong parts; the claims even as given didn't support the argument. Arguments to Con.

Reasons for voting decision: There wasn't much of a change to even debate here. Pro only made this debate 1 round long, so he never the change to respond to Con's arguments. Con does a good job of point out Pro's flaws here so I'm giving him the win.

Reasons for voting decision: I may consider voting for Pro if this had been more than 1 round. Everyone has heard Pro's arguments and he hardly went into any depth how valid they are. Con refuted the fine tuning argument/anthropic argument by showing how it's expected by probability to have a planet with life. Con gave an atheistic account of morality. With the big bang, Pro cited an atheist wiki that has an example of the flatness problem. Con didn't point it out, but that is outdated. Inflation solves the rate of expansion problem. Pro's personal experience argument was shown to be a non-sequiter, as it's subjective. You really can't argue for a positive and win with one round. Con could be completely wrong, but how are we going to vote otherwise?

Reasons for voting decision: First I would like to state as Con had already pointed out that the example you providing is a severe dis-justice to a true "Fine tuning argument". Con also countered every point that Pro made, along with providing logical reasons as to why he as right. His rebuttals overpowered Pros original assertion.
As far as the most reliable sources sadly pro wins this. He provides and lecture from William Craig who is one of the leading apologetics at the moment. While the topic on the video did not flow as well as it should have, it was a viable source along with the other link PRO posted.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.